No, I'm saying that contracts don't automatically equate worth. Whether or not a team should sign Matt Ryan over an elite defensive player involves a number of issues, namely existing team needs, the impact of those needs on team success, market value for each player, the difference between the players and similar alternatives, the capacity to actually acquire such alternatives, etc. No team should simply go, well QB X is getting paid more than DEF X, so we should obviously sign QB X who must be more valuable.

There, you just said it.

POSITIONAL VALUE.

The impact of a team needing a QB is so much more bigger than the impact of a team needing a CB. Obviously you fail to see how big of a difference that actually is.

The impact of a team needing a QB is so much more bigger than the impact of a team needing a CB. Obviously you fail to see how big of a difference that actually is.

I can't really say much else if don't see that.

Perhaps, but that's a vast oversimplification. I don't fail to see anything, I understand that there are more dynamics at play than simply POS X is more valuable than POS Y. If you need both a QB and CB, and there are five good QBs available and only one great CB, clearly you emphasize paying the CB because acquiring a comparable QB will be easier. If you want to make it completely generic and say would I rather have a HoF QB or a HoF CB, I'd go QB. But in the specific example between Matt Ryan and Darrelle Revis(in his prime), I'm going Revis. Finding an alternative to Ryan is simply easier than finding an alternative to Revis.

Screw Darrelle Revis. He takes away the best receiver, but that's it. His impact is much less than that of J.J. Watt. Watt impacts the game on both run and pass plays. He can disrupt the passing game more than Revis can in my opinion. I'd take J.J. Watt over any other defensive player in the league, and I'd certainly take him over Matt Ryan.

Jadeveon Clowney can have that same type of impact. You need impact players to win in the NFL.

Perhaps, but that's a vast oversimplification. I don't fail to see anything, I understand that there are more dynamics at play than simply POS X is more valuable than POS Y. If you need both a QB and CB, and there are five good QBs available and only one great CB, clearly you emphasize paying the CB because acquiring a comparable QB will be easier. If you want to make it completely generic and say would I rather have a HoF QB or a HoF CB, I'd go QB. But in the specific example between Matt Ryan and Darrelle Revis(in his prime), I'm going Revis. Finding an alternative to Ryan is simply easier than finding an alternative to Revis.

No. Well yes, that is true, but it's pointless and irrelevant.

Trying to explain this in as many ways as I can:

- You don't need to have a Revis to be a contender, but you absolutely NEED to have a Matt Ryan to be a contender.

- The difference in positional value totally out weighs the fact that it is harder to find Revis than Ryan.

- If you have Matt Ryan you don't let him go, because you're going to be nothing until you find him again. The same can't be said for Revis.

- If you have Ryan you don't need to go and get a Revis to be a contender. If you have Revis and you want any chance of competing, you HAVE to go a get a Matt Ryan.

- If you pick Revis, you still need to work really hard to get a Matt Ryan. If you have Matt Ryan, you don't need a Revis - you're already a contender.

We can go back to 1989 till now. The only two teams to win a Super Bowl without a top 10 QB was Ravens in 2001 and Bucs in 2003. But you know what those two teams had in common? Top ten defenses... OF ALL TIME! Not that season but every season the NFL has been around.

So for me with the new rules helping the offenses and the fact that it's pretty hard to build a top defense of all time and keep them together for the 4 to 5 years it takes to them to gel. I'll draft the QB that grades out as a top 3 pick over the DE... 10 out of 10 times.

- You don't need to have a Revis to be a contender, but you absolutely NEED to have a Matt Ryan to be a contender.

- The difference in positional value totally out weighs the fact that it is harder to find Revis than Ryan.

- If you have Matt Ryan you don't let him go, because you're going to be nothing until you find him again. The same can't be said for Revis.

- If you have Ryan you don't need to go and get a Revis to be a contender. If you have Revis and you want any chance of competing, you HAVE to go a get a Matt Ryan.

- If you pick Revis, you still need to work really hard to get a Matt Ryan. If you have Matt Ryan, you don't need a Revis - you're already a contender.

Its not irrelevant at all. Its easier to find 'a Matt Ryan' than it is to find 'a Darrelle Revis'. Your main problem is that you continue to see this as a either/or situation. You can have either Matt Ryan or Darrelle Revis, but for some reason, not both. That isn't true. Of course you still need 'a Matt Ryan' to seriously compete even if you have 'a Darrelle Revis', but as I've stated, that's easier to accomplish than the inverse. As an alternative to dropping $100M+ on 'a Matt Ryan' now, you can sign Revis for cheaper, and then target either an alternative QB in free agency (for instance, a guy like Matt Schaub), or draft one. You can have both, believe it or not.

Its not irrelevant at all. Its easier to find 'a Matt Ryan' than it is to find 'a Darrelle Revis'. Your main problem is that you continue to see this as a either/or situation. You can have either Matt Ryan or Darrelle Revis, but for some reason, not both. That isn't true. Of course you still need 'a Matt Ryan' to seriously compete even if you have 'a Darrelle Revis', but as I've stated, that's easier to accomplish than the inverse. As an alternative to dropping $100M+ on 'a Matt Ryan' now, you can sign Revis for cheaper, and then target either an alternative QB in free agency (for instance, a guy like Matt Schaub), or draft one. You can have both, believe it or not.

I understand what you are saying. But to have a Revis and Schaub or a Ryan and Cromartie. I'm taking the Ryan and Cro in less than a second

Its not irrelevant at all. Its easier to find 'a Matt Ryan' than it is to find 'a Darrelle Revis'. Your main problem is that you continue to see this as a either/or situation. You can have either Matt Ryan or Darrelle Revis, but for some reason, not both. That isn't true. Of course you still need 'a Matt Ryan' to seriously compete even if you have 'a Darrelle Revis', but as I've stated, that's easier to accomplish than the inverse. As an alternative to dropping $100M+ on 'a Matt Ryan' now, you can sign Revis for cheaper, and then target either an alternative QB in free agency (for instance, a guy like Matt Schaub), or draft one. You can have both, believe it or not.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooo

It is hard to find Matt Ryan. Very hard. Just because it is easier than finding a Darrelle Revis, it doesn't mean it is easy to find. You can have Revis and then never find a Matt Ryan whilst he is still a decent CB.

Matt Schaub is not matt ryan. matt schaub sucks. schaub is never going to win a superbowl.

schaub is not an alternative to matt ryan. thats like saying "you can get an alternative to revis!!!!!...............carlos rogers."

how many teams have been looking for a matt ryan for years? if it was so easy do you think the raiders would be going from jamarcus russell, to kyle boller, to jason campbell to carson palmer to terrelle pryor to matt flynn. you could get revis, try to find matt ryan for 10 years and then he's 35 years old. you just wasted 10 years of your franchise because you just assumed you could get a matt ryan. well done. well done!

OR...you could get ryan and be a perennial contender for 10 years....simple.

seriously, im getting stressed out now. you're not stupid, cigaro. why are you being like this?

I understand what you are saying. But to have a Revis and Schaub or a Ryan and Cromartie. I'm taking the Ryan and Cro in less than a second

Don't get hung up on Schaub, he was simply the first example of a guy who became a franchise QB after being acquired in FA. Another such example is Drew Brees, who came in on a comparatively small contract.

A lot goes into winning a SB. You need a great team which means that you need great players. So yes every SB winner has great players other than it's QB. But more so than not you must have the QB to get to the SB.

It is hard to find Matt Ryan. Very hard. Just because it is easier than finding a Darrelle Revis, it doesn't mean it is easy to find. You can have Revis and then never find a Matt Ryan whilst he is still a decent CB.

Matt Schaub is not matt ryan. matt schaub sucks. schaub is never going to win a superbowl.

schaub is not an alternative to matt ryan. thats like saying "you can get an alternative to revis!!!!!...............carlos rogers."

how many teams have been looking for a matt ryan for years? if it was so easy do you think the raiders would be going from jamarcus russell, to kyle boller, to jason campbell to carson palmer to terrelle pryor to matt flynn. you could get revis, try to find matt ryan for 10 years and then he's 35 years old. you just wasted 10 years of your franchise because you just assumed you could get a matt ryan. well done. well done!

OR...you could get ryan and be a perennial contender for 10 years....simple.

seriously, im getting stressed out now. you're not stupid, cigaro. why are you being like this?

Don't like Schaub? Then look at Drew Brees.

You then point to the Raiders. Congratulations, you've found a franchise that is bad at evaluating quarterbacks. Meanwhile, I provided a list of sixteen franchise quarterbacks. Literally half the league has one, and half of those teams back up theory that franchise guys can be found outside top ten draft selections, yet you're acting as if it takes the gift of God to find one. Its not easy, but a competent FO can do it. But players like Darrelle Revis? That requires a lot more than a competent FO to acquire.

I'd still take Clowney. Super Bowl championship teams aren't built in a year, I don't know why people think that because you need a franchise quarterback, you have to draft one this year. They're actually pumped out fairly regularly. As much as I like Teddy Bridgewater, he isn't a rare prospect; Clowney is. In most draft classes you're going to find QBs of Bridgewater's status, but only once every few years are you going to find a player like Clowney. Take Clowney and find your QB elsewhere, perhaps FA if the chances are right, or perhaps next year's draft. At worst, you're picking number one overall again, but now you get your franchise quarterback and Clowney. If Clowney helps your team enough, you can still grab franchise quarterbacks outside of the top five, and you can also trade up if necessary. Either way, you'll have your shot at a player like Bridgewater fairly soon, you won't have your shot at a player like Clowney.

You then point to the Raiders. Congratulations, you've found a franchise that is bad at evaluating quarterbacks. Meanwhile, I provided a list of sixteen franchise quarterbacks. Literally half the league has one, and half of those teams back up theory that franchise guys can be found outside top ten draft selections, yet you're acting as if it takes the gift of God to find one. Its not easy, but a competent FO can do it. But players like Darrelle Revis? That requires a lot more than a competent FO to acquire.

it's obviously not possible but you look at the risk reward and it is no where near worth it.

the risk of going revis is not having a franchise qb for 10 years. the reward is eventually getting you're qb and having a slighty better chance of winning the superbowl. it just doesn't make any sense.

10 times out of 10 you take the option of guaranteeing that you have a franchise qb and then getting some decent pieces around him. you don't just go with a cornerback and then hope you are one of the teams that ends up with a franchise qb; that is just unbelievably stupid.

it's obviously not possible but you look at the risk reward and it is no where near worth it.

the risk of going revis is not having a franchise qb for 10 years. the reward is eventually getting you're qb and having a slighty better chance of winning the superbowl. it just doesn't make any sense.

How is this the risk? Once again, you fall into the fallacy of assuming that because you got Revis, you can't get a franchise QB. If you sign Revis, why can't you still draft one? Why can't you still find one in FA? None of those options are precluded simply because you signed Revis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

10 times out of 10 you take the option of guaranteeing that you have a franchise qb and then getting some decent pieces around him. you don't just go with a cornerback and then hope you are one of the teams that ends up with a franchise qb; that is just unbelievably stupid.

but, whatever. im bored.

Why? Because they're so rare that half the league has managed to find one? For some reason you've attached some undeserved mythos on quarterbacks. I'm guessing its due to the fact that they are admittedly necessary to win titles, and some teams are just really bad at getting them while the good ones get the most press, but they aren't gods among football players. Turning this back to the topic, as I said earlier, it'll be easier to find and acquire another quarterback of Bridgewater's pedigree than a player of Clowney's pedigree.

How is this the risk? Once again, you fall into the fallacy of assuming that because you got Revis, you can't get a franchise QB. If you sign Revis, why can't you still draft one? Why can't you still find one in FA? None of those options are precluded simply because you signed Revis.

Why? Because they're so rare that half the league has managed to find one? For some reason you've attached some undeserved mythos on quarterbacks. I'm guessing its due to the fact that they are admittedly necessary to win titles, and some teams are just really bad at getting them while the good ones get the most press, but they aren't gods among football players. Turning this back to the topic, as I said earlier, it'll be easier to find and acquire another quarterback of Bridgewater's pedigree than a player of Clowney's pedigree.

oh. my. god. the RISK of choosing revis over a franchise qb. if you choose revis, you're hoping that you can find a franchise qb. that is a risk because it isnt a guarantee that you find that guy. understand?

unsurprisingly you just totally ignore my point. you don't take revis over matt ryan because the RISK (that you don't find a franchise qb) is not worth the REWARD (having a slightly better chance of winning the superbowl). UNDERSTAND???!?!!!?!!?!

oh. my. god. the RISK of choosing revis over a franchise qb. if you choose revis, you're hoping that you can find a franchise qb. that is a risk because it isnt a guarantee that you find that guy. understand?

unsurprisingly you just totally ignore my point. you don't take revis over matt ryan because the RISK (that you don't find a franchise qb) is not worth the REWARD (having a slightly better chance of winning the superbowl). UNDERSTAND???!?!!!?!!?!

Yes, it is a risk in that regard. And yes, you're right that if you bet wrong, you could be screwed. If you're the Oakland Raiders, you could spend 10 years looking for a franchise quarterback. But there's also the risk that it turns out Matt Ryan was in a really ideal situation in Atlanta with the coaching staff and weapons available. There's the risk that you have your franchise quarterback, but your secondary is still horrible and its gets shredded come playoff time. There are risks with every single move made in the NFL, doesn't mean you don't take them. You may certainly bet and lose, but you may also bet and win.

Put it this way, Clowney would probably have been the 3rd pick in the 2011 draft, and definitely the first pick this year.

Of course of franchise QB you can build your offense around is more valuable than an All-Pro DE, but in order for me to pass on Clowney at 1/1, that QB prospect has to project in my mind as a top 10 player at his position in the pros.

In hindsight I would take Matt Ryan over Clowney, but if they both came out in the same draft class, I think most would take Clowney above Matty Ice.

Clowney just seems like one of those athletic freaks with playmaking ability who also happens to be a good football player with excellent instincts for the game.

But the old NFL adage is still true; if your team doesn't have a QB, there's no more important position to fill than QB.

However, is there really a QB prospect in this draft that projects as more valuable than Clowney is a DE?? Or is someone like Bridgewater talented enough to be a very good NFL QB, therefore he should be taken ahead of Clowney??

Put it this way, Clowney would probably have been the 3rd pick in the 2011 draft, and definitely the first pick this year.

Of course of franchise QB you can build your offense around is more valuable than an All-Pro DE, but in order for me to pass on Clowney at 1/1, that QB prospect has to project in my mind as a top 10 player at his position in the pros.

In hindsight I would take Matt Ryan over Clowney, but if they both came out in the same draft class, I think most would take Clowney above Matty Ice.

Clowney just seems like one of those athletic freaks with playmaking ability who also happens to be a good football player with excellent instincts for the game.

But the old NFL adage is still true; if your team doesn't have a QB, there's no more important position to fill than QB.

However, is there really a QB prospect in this draft that projects as more valuable than Clowney is a DE?? Or is someone like Bridgewater talented enough to be a very good NFL QB, therefore he should be taken ahead of Clowney??

I would go even further and say top 3-4 quarterback. It would have to be somebody in the Rodgers, Brady, Brees, or Peyton Manning category.